| Revision as of 01:25, 1 October 2012 editHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,390 edits →Tanka prose← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:26, 1 October 2012 edit undoHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,390 edits →Tanka proseNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| : '''Comment''' - It is difficult for non-specialists to form a proper judgement on a literary issue such as this. Firstly it is clear that Tanka is a recognised form with plenty of reliable sources. Secondly, the references already in the article, and the existence of journals like make it clear that Tanka prose also exists to the extent that many learned articles can be written about it, and many pieces of it exist. Thirdly it is at once clear that both the Tanka prose article, and ], are in need of considerable editing and wikifying. Fourthly, it is plain that there has been a dispute; please could everyone remember to remain civil. In this situation, without a great deal of study, the most I can say is that there is a ''prima facie'' case for an article on the subject; that many of the references seem to be appropriate; and that notability is at least close to being established. I would tend therefore to believe the article should be kept, though I'm happy to listen to further evidence, presented plainly. ] (]) 19:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | : '''Comment''' - It is difficult for non-specialists to form a proper judgement on a literary issue such as this. Firstly it is clear that Tanka is a recognised form with plenty of reliable sources. Secondly, the references already in the article, and the existence of journals like make it clear that Tanka prose also exists to the extent that many learned articles can be written about it, and many pieces of it exist. Thirdly it is at once clear that both the Tanka prose article, and ], are in need of considerable editing and wikifying. Fourthly, it is plain that there has been a dispute; please could everyone remember to remain civil. In this situation, without a great deal of study, the most I can say is that there is a ''prima facie'' case for an article on the subject; that many of the references seem to be appropriate; and that notability is at least close to being established. I would tend therefore to believe the article should be kept, though I'm happy to listen to further evidence, presented plainly. ] (]) 19:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :: '''Comment''' - My concern is that the sources are non-academic, and do not adequately explain why "tanka prose" is appropriate terminology. They discuss the term |
:: '''Comment''' - My concern is that the sources are non-academic, and do not adequately explain why "tanka prose" is appropriate terminology. They discuss the term almost exclusively in relation to ancient Japanese literature, and I ''am'' a specialist in that. It does not appear in ''any'' specialist literature on the subject, and ] how the sources cited are not reliable when it comes to Japanese literature. It appears etymologically closest to the term '']'', which is why I initially moved that page there, but the user in question has insisted that it is closer to '']''. I think more evidence needs to be provided in order to justify this article's existence, and despite over three weeks of trying to locate or elicit reliable sources I have thus far been unsuccessful. It's most important, of course, to insure that no ''false'' information is put on Misplaced Pages, and the article in question was clearly created for that purpose . ] (]) 01:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:26, 1 October 2012
Tanka prose
- Tanka prose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article discusses an obscure neologism without citing any reliable sources. It was apparently created to promote said neologism. Does not meet WP:N. Describes an obscure modern poetry form/movement, and all the sources cited are primary sources, written by members of the small, apparently non-notable movement in question. Article itself fails to establish the notability of its subject-matter, and since it only cites primary sources is apparently original research. Appears to have been substantially edited by only one user. Said user, when repeatedly prompted, refused to cite reliable, secondary sources, but has admitted elsewhere that it is unlikely any such sources exist. I have tried extensively to discuss this issue on the article talk page with said user, but have only met with than personal attacks. The minor literary movement described in the article clearly does not meet Misplaced Pages standards of notability, and even the primary sources it cites are poorly-researched and make ridiculous claims that the movement has existed since eighth-century Japan. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment -- While only peripherally related to the above AfD nomination, I need to point out that I put a proposed deletion tag on the page yesterday, and the user responsible for the page deleted it. Said user then posted a comment on the talk page, not addressing the core issue of the lack of sources, but instead attacking me personally. Said user mentioned a dispute over content, but this dispute is already over and is entirely irrelevant to the proposed deletion. It concerned this user's repeated attempts to include ridiculous theories about ancient Japanese literature in the page. Since the page is original research, and discusses a topic for which no reliable sources exist, the former dispute about content is irrelevant. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - It is difficult for non-specialists to form a proper judgement on a literary issue such as this. Firstly it is clear that Tanka is a recognised form with plenty of reliable sources. Secondly, the references already in the article, and the existence of journals like Haibun Today make it clear that Tanka prose also exists to the extent that many learned articles can be written about it, and many pieces of it exist. Thirdly it is at once clear that both the Tanka prose article, and Tanka in English, are in need of considerable editing and wikifying. Fourthly, it is plain that there has been a dispute; please could everyone remember to remain civil. In this situation, without a great deal of study, the most I can say is that there is a prima facie case for an article on the subject; that many of the references seem to be appropriate; and that notability is at least close to being established. I would tend therefore to believe the article should be kept, though I'm happy to listen to further evidence, presented plainly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - My concern is that the sources are non-academic, and do not adequately explain why "tanka prose" is appropriate terminology. They discuss the term almost exclusively in relation to ancient Japanese literature, and I am a specialist in that. It does not appear in any specialist literature on the subject, and I have already demonstrated how the sources cited are not reliable when it comes to Japanese literature. It appears etymologically closest to the term uta monogatari, which is why I initially moved that page there, but the user in question has insisted that it is closer to nikki bungaku. I think more evidence needs to be provided in order to justify this article's existence, and despite over three weeks of trying to locate or elicit reliable sources I have thus far been unsuccessful. It's most important, of course, to insure that no false information is put on Misplaced Pages, and the article in question was clearly created for that purpose . elvenscout742 (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)